Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Global Engagement Center

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 19:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Global Engagement Center

(
)

Created by W9793 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Global Engagement Center; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Comment: @W9793: I appreciate the work you've done on this article, but please be mindful of WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." I think you can easily fix this and still get the DYK, but you will need to add new sources and some (not a lot) new material. I realize you may not like these sources, so take your time looking for news articles, books, and journal articles. I will provide a few examples of some potential sources here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Please ping me when you've added additional secondary sources. They could easily replace some of the primary ones you are currently using, so you wouldn't have to change much content around, but I suspect you will need to add more content because the department has been the subject of attacks from the right. While we don't have to frame it from the POV of the attackers, you do need to at least acknowledge some measure of dispute or controversy if one exists. In other words, we aren't stenographers, we are more like archivists, and without the secondary source coverage, we are only getting an official, singular viewpoint from the primary sources, which doesn't give us a balanced treatment. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your feedback - I've updated the page accordingly. Please advise if further revision is needed. W9793 (talk)

@W9793: I think you have taken steps in the right direction. I am looking at the article now, but I see that some copyediting is needed. I'm also going to simplify the headings and move the publications to the appendix. Currently, you have 31 sources in the article, of which five (more or less) are secondary. Of course, it's not the number itself that matters, but how much content is supported by the secondary, and right now, most is still primary. I really think that needs to change, but as I said, you are headed in the right direction. I mentioned citing the secondary sources about any controversies up above, but you cited press releases by the politicians instead when there are plenty of mainstream sources available. Not sure why you did that. Evidently, there's still some confusion on your end as to what constitutes a secondary source. I tried to help by providing examples up above, but that didn't work, so I will have another go at it, create a list, and link to it here, and hopefully that will be the last time we discuss it. My other complaint is that there is a lot of excessive quoting going on, and while that it is sometimes relevant, try to focus on paraphrasing. One of the easiest ways to do this is to read the article and then open a blank page or text file, and from memory, rewrite what you can. I find that this often solves the problem because it forces you to paraphrase without looking at the material in the edit window (there's even a new site called "Ensō" that uses this as the basis for their app). Three areas need to be paraphrased IMO: the mission statement, the NYT report findings, and the AP. Also, in the "Origins and establishment" (which I'm calling history), it isn't explained why the program arose in 2011 and why it was renamed in 2016. It's also curious what the program was doing from 2011 to 2016, when the US saw the largest uptick in domestic propaganda bubbling up to news outlets (some mainstream, some not), and the radicalization of Americans on levels never before seen in recent history (see for example, The New Hate, a contemporaneous summary of all of the forces playing out at that time in the media). Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@W9793: I just added six secondary sources to the further reading section for you to use. Of course, you don't have to use them, and you might not find all of them useful for your purposes. But some of them should be useful and could conceivably replace the primary sources. In terms of the so-called controversies, don't use press releases from politicians, use secondary news coverage. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Thanks for some great edits. Do you think the article is good to go? Ideally, I would like to see their work related to COVID added (it's sourced in further reading), but it's not required for DYK. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Thanks for adding the COVID bit. Any hook suggestions? Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: @Cielquiparle: Thanks to you both for the suggestions/edits. I will add a section elaborating on 2011-2016 activities later. Would either one of the two original hooks still work? W9793 (talk)
@W9793: I think the article is looking great. Talk about the sky that speaks... In any case, I would love to see some shorter hooks. How about something pithy and less than 60 characters? Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@W9793: I think you can shorten the original hook and replace the primary with the AP source like this: ... that the Global Engagement Center counters foreign propaganda and disinformation? Source: https://apnews.com/article/disinformation-china-us-xinjiang-global-opinion-c9e033f22622841935a2b1bc1060c01b See the difference in hook length. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Thanks - I would have preferred to use a hook that is a bit more substantial but yes this might work better in terms of meeting the word count and being straight to the point. W9793 (talk)
@W9793: Take some come to come up with some new ones (ALT2, ALT3, ALT4). As it stands now, the only thing stopping me from passing it a good hook, and I can't pass my own hook. If you like, I can hand this off to another reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@W9793: I want to see a new hook cited to a secondary source, like the example I gave of the AP up above. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: What about ALT2: ... that the Global Engagement Center published a special report on China's efforts to "reshape the global information environment" in 2023? Source: https://apnews.com/article/disinformation-china-us-xinjiang-global-opinion-c9e033f22622841935a2b1bc1060c01b W9793 (talk)

@W9793: It's a bit odd, because the quote refers to the title of the report. Just try to come up with a hook that is interesting, short and sweet, and encourages readers to find out more. Viriditas (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Asking for fresh review. The article is ready to go, but the hooks are not. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: What about ALT3: ... that the Global Engagement Center leads US efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns worldwide? Source: https://apnews.com/article/disinformation-china-us-xinjiang-global-opinion-c9e033f22622841935a2b1bc1060c01b W9793 (talk)

Note, you have to put "that" in front of it for the hook length to report the numbers. (I just did that above). Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
@W9793: I like ALT3. I will work on passing this in just a moment. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is new and long enough, QPQ not needed. Cielquiparle did an incredible job fixing issues and expanding the article. I must remember to ask Cielquiparle to share their magic with me in the future, as the article is a pleasure to read, and I can only hope to work that magic in my own articles going forward. W9793, if you are looking for a mentor, I have a hard time believing you will ever find anyone more competent than Cielquiparle. The only issue right now is the hook, unfortunately. ALT3 is great, but it isn't properly represented and sourced. I suppose you could make an argument that it is cited in the lead, but this should be explicit to match the hook and the source. This should be a simple fix. I looked at the AP source and wasn't able to see 1 to 1 parity, but perhaps I failed to notice it. I think for those of us who have been reading this article, we can all agree to that the GEC "leads US efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns worldwide", but is this statement reflected in the article and the sources? If not, please fix it or alter the hook. Viriditas (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: What about ALT4: ... that the Global Engagement Center leads US efforts to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation campaigns worldwide? Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN10744/2 W9793 (talk)

@W9793:: please check out WP:DYKRULES: "The facts of the hook need to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentences in which they appear." Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I've made another minor revision to the sentence ALT 4 appears in - please advise if the current version meets the criteria. Thanks. W9793 (talk)

Here is another one for consideration:
Ready to suggest others and/or workshop as needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not really sure about this. Sputnik is not considered a reliable source, and even though the hook is cited to reliable sources and attributes the information to Sputnik, I'm not sure if ALT5 is kosher or at least meets the spirit of Sputnik's deprecation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: thank you for helping out, that is greatly appreciated. @Cielquiparle: am I reading this correctly, and could Narutolovehinata5 be missing what I'm seeing? I read ALT5 as tremendously ironic, unusual, and unexpected, thus meeting the interesting criterion. That is to say, the hook is ironically (but indirectly, which likely leads to the ambiguity picked up by Narutolovehinata5) pointing out that Sputnik, a source known for its "Ministry of Truth"-like reporting, is accusing the GEC of its own misdeeds. Cielquiparle, did I pickup on this irony correctly? If so, I like it, but I wonder if Narutolovehinata5's objection is likely to be raised by others due to the failure to see the irony implicit in the hook. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Second try (because it's not just Sputnik that said it):
  • Sadly, that loses the ironic import of ALT5. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I agree. Plus the whole point of the Global Engagement Center is that it deals with entities like Sputnik in its day-to-day activities. The hook isn't saying they are a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense or whatever. Click to find out more. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Yes, exactly. I love ALT5, but my experience on DYK (and elsewhere) tells me that not everybody shares my enthusiasm. So what I would like to do is approve ALT5 and one other hook. How do you feel about me approving ALT4 as the other hook? I believe it is supposed to be reflected by the lead, but could you check to make sure that it is? Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of ALT4 which is in present tense citing a 2017 government report which feels like outdated information and "leads US efforts" seems rather strong given the complexity of the number of organizations in the US government which do similar things. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Understood. Any thoughts on an additional hook based on ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, or ALT3? I want to try and pass at least one hook by W9793 in addition to ALT5. This way, the closer can choose between two, or revert to the other one if there's an interpretation problem like Narutolovehinata5 demonstrated. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't even realize ALT5 was meant to be an ironic hook. My issue with ALT5 was that, when taken at face value, it might make the reader believe Sputnik, even though Sputnik is a deeply problematic source. This is of course not meant to defend the GEC, but my point is that I think the irony would be lost on readers unfamiliar with either, which I assume is a majority of the readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the easiest way to meet and counter your objection is to add four words, "counterpropaganda efforts of the", like this: ... that Sputnik news agency compared the counterpropaganda efforts of the Global Engagement Center to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984? I believe that satisfies your objection by signifying what the GEC does, while also assuming most readers already know that Sputnik engages in disinformation based on its long history and name. In this way, the irony is retained. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
That's probably still a tall order. Remember that Sputnik is deprecated on Wikipedia, and while that does not mean it can't be used in limited exceptions, the way the hook is written gives the impression that Wikipedia is endorsing Sputnik's claims while also claiming that Sputnik is a valid source, which I think goes against the spirit of Sputnik's deprecation. Is there a particular reason why Sputnik is being highlighted in this case? ALT6 seems just fine to me even if the irony is lost. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Just explained multiple times up above why Sputnik is being highlighted, so a bit confused as to why you just asked again. Also, I can’t possibly see how there is any cross-over potential between the real world nature of Sputnik making this claim and the in-house policy of using Sputnik as a source. That literally makes no sense to me. I get that we aren’t going to see eye to eye on this, and I don’t see this hook as particularly important or necessary, but I do admit to being frustrated by arguments like this. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I mean I do understand why Sputnik is used for irony purposes, I was referring more to why the attachment to ALT5 specifically as opposed to other hooks like ALT6, since the latter makes it clear that Sputnik is far from the only outlet that has made the same claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I view ALT6 as far more problematic than ALT5, not just because it knee-caps and removes the irony associated with a Russian state-run media outlet accusing a US counterpropaganda organization as being like the Ministry of Truth (a name Orwell used to refer to authoritarian governments like the former Soviet Union and others), but because ALT6 does exactly what you worried about ALT5 doing! It makes the reader believe their critics, who are not named, might be right. Might be best at this point to come up with ALT7 and ALT8 and move forward. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
IMO, if all the hooks check out, they should all be approved (even if each of us have different ones we like and dislike), and it should be up to the promoter which one to choose. But since we're still here I'll offer another one:
Source: New York Times, October 26, 2023 Quote: "U.S. Tries New Tack on Russian Disinformation: Pre-Empting It – The State Department’s Global Engagement Center is taking the unusual step of disclosing a covert Russian operation when it is barely off the ground...The center, which since 2017 has focused on combating propaganda and disinformation, routinely details Kremlin efforts, but identifying and trying to pre-empt a campaign when it is barely off the ground is a new tactic. It is one that reflects the realization that false narratives are harder to counter once they have already spread." Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Approve ALT4 as the least controversial, the least problematic, and the one proposed by the nom. That won't make most of us happy or unhappy, so "yay" for democracy. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about this. Doesn't ALT4 seem like praise for the Center despite its controversies? It's probably as problematic as ALT5 was, albeit from the other side. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how a description of the organization amounts to "praise", nor do I see how it could be problematic. The Associated Press: "The Global Engagement Center [is] a State Department agency that’s tasked with combating foreign propaganda and disinformation".[8] The Congressional Research Service: "The State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) is tasked with countering foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation targeting the United States and U.S. interests... the GEC was tasked with leading interagency efforts to carry out U.S.-government-sponsored counterterrorism communications to foreign publics..."[9] Could you point out the "praise" that you see? Regarding your comment on "controversies", those are not controveries at all, they are opinions, many of which belong to a fringe group of people and are best avoided. It's odd to me that you see this as taking sides. We should strive to best represent the subject we are writing about by using the best sources at our disposal. The heart of the so-called controversy, namely politicians and pundits on the far right who claim that GEC is "facilitating censorship of conservative opinions in the U.S.", has zero basis in data, facts, or evidence to substantiate it. Is there a good reason we should create hooks based on tenuous claims that lack credibility? All claims are not the same, nor should we give them equal weight. As Stephen Colbert joked in 2006, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Is that what you are getting at here? Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to complicate things further, but personally, ALT5 has something in it, though I'd want some more context as to what Sputnik is. I'd approve a hook beginning something like 'that the Russian state-run Sputnik news agency'.--Launchballer 19:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
ALT5 was my original choice, but it was opposed by another user up above. I specifically chose ALT4 as the least controversial and the most neutral to avoid the opposes, and they opposed that as well. I think Sputnik is well known as a Russian propaganda outlet, so it doesn’t really need an explanation, but given that you see it otherwise, why don’t you add your version as an ALT8? I will support it. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I support ALT8, ALT5, and ALT4, but for the sake of transparency and fresh perspectives, I am requesting a new reviewer, specifically one that has not participated in the previous discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
ALT8 approved, definitely better than previously-approved ALT4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Though it probably should probably be clarified (don't want to assume familiarity excessively) as ALT8a: ... that the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik compared the Global Engagement Center to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four?
Comments prior to promotion: I read through the nomination and confirmed the hook. I see the reasons hooks were rejected and I think AirshipJungleman29 is probably the most concise. I found it in the article cited as the first sentence of the Reception section in or article. I see no issues with Earwig; also great work by all to get the nomination ready for the prep set. The article was started on October 5? According to the talk page the article title was converted from a redirect. Since it all happened in time, (article on October 5 - nominated October 12) it was eligible for DYK when nominated. I am sorry for adding more bytes here! Bruxton (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Global_Engagement_Center&oldid=1192321083"